View Poll Results: Should ODI's be split into 2 innings.

Voters
34. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    3 8.82%
  • No

    10 29.41%
  • Like ODI's as it is.

    15 44.12%
  • Keep ODI's as it is, plus add this new format.

    0 0%
  • Only Tests and 20/20's

    6 17.65%
Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 141

Thread: 2 innings ODIs?

  1. #1
    State Captain LA ICE-E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    1,973

    Icon5 2 innings ODIs?

    ok so it's gonna be tried in county cricket with pro40. I kind of like the idea because that eliminates the "boring 20-40" thing.

    But instead of it being 40 overs and being like 2 20/20's added together, I would like it to be like 25 overs per innings with 2 sets of 5 overs of powerplay per innings and the 1st 5 overs is mandatory powerplay of each innings and the other 5 is chosen by the captains.

    I think this will eventually replace odi's, what you guys think?

  2. #2
    International Regular
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,536
    I like ODI's as they are, although. your idea is not a bad one.

  3. #3
    International Coach GotSpin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Stranger leering through a pair of binoculars
    Posts
    12,826
    I got confused - Not very bright you see
    Mark Waugh
    "He's [Michael Clarke] on Twitter saying sorry for not walking? Mate if he did that in our side there'd be hell to play. AB would chuck his Twitter box off the balcony or whatever it is. Sorry for not walking? Jesus Christ man."
    Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put it into a fruit salad
    RIP Craigos

  4. #4
    State Captain LA ICE-E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    1,973
    Quote Originally Posted by GoT_SpIn View Post
    I got confused - Not very bright you see
    what's confusing? 50 overs being split in half so it be like this
    Team A 25 overs
    Team B 25 Overs
    Team A 50 overs
    Team B 50 Overs.


  5. #5
    Hall of Fame Member Goughy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    All Over
    Posts
    15,117
    Its probably how it should have been done in the begininng. Prevents massive blowout wins as the game is broken down into sections. Helps extend games for TV scheduling.

    However, now its further faffing on a format that cant be left alone. Id love to see the number of changes introduced in OD cricket to try and jazz it up. There hasnt been a year without meddling.
    If I only just posted the above post, please wait 5 mins before replying as there is bound to be edits

    West Robham Rabid Wolves Caedere lemma quod eat lemma

    Happy Birthday! (easier than using Birthday threads)

    Email and MSN- Goughy at cricketmail dot net

  6. #6
    U19 Cricketer S.P. Fleming's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sydney, New Zealand
    Posts
    473
    na, ODI cricket is fine as it is.
    Daniel Vettori is an absolute legend!

  7. #7
    U19 Debutant
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    391
    Bizarre. Is there going to be a follow on rule? How will they deal with Duckworth-Lewis ?

  8. #8
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Not sure whether it is yet going to be done in this country - the overwhelmingly preferable option for most people is to simply get rid of the Pro40 nonsense entirely.

    Two-innings limited-overs cricket is yet another thing that garners roughly zero interest for me.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  9. #9
    State Captain LA ICE-E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    1,973
    Quote Originally Posted by Isura View Post
    Bizarre. Is there going to be a follow on rule? How will they deal with Duckworth-Lewis ?
    No because you only have ten wickets for both innings I think.

  10. #10
    State Captain LA ICE-E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    1,973
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Not sure whether it is yet going to be done in this country - the overwhelmingly preferable option for most people is to simply get rid of the Pro40 nonsense entirely.

    Two-innings limited-overs cricket is yet another thing that garners roughly zero interest for me.
    Yeah I read it is going to be done this year.You don't like 20/20, and you don't like this, but if odi was like this from the beginning I doubt you'd have 0 interest in it.

  11. #11
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by LA ICE-E View Post
    Yeah I read it is going to be done this year.
    No, you read it was proposed. Unless you've read something I haven't, you haven't read that it's confirmed.
    You don't like 20/20, and you don't like this, but if odi was like this from the beginning I doubt you'd have 0 interest in it.
    Maybe. But that isn't the way it's happened.

  12. #12
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,620
    I actually don't think this idea is horrible. You'd have to split it into two innings of 25 - not 20 - for it to be of any real use though as 40 overs matches have always been fairly dire as far as I'm concerned. I'm also assuming that the innings would continue after the split; I certainly hope you're not talking about two totally separate innings where the openers go back out.

    There are certainly some advantages. it'd nullify the effect of a toss and potentially keep games "live" for a bit longer as well as ending complete blowouts a little quicker.

    The main issue I have with it is the disadvantage the batsmen not out "across innings" would face. I suppose we see the same thing across session breaks in Tests though, and it's just viewed as part of the game, so I'm not sure.
    ~ Cribbage ~

    Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since December 2009

  13. #13
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    I actually don't think this idea is horrible. You'd have to split it into two innings of 25 - not 20 - for it to be of any real use though as 40 overs matches have always been fairly dire as far as I'm concerned. I'm also assuming that the innings would continue after the split; I certainly hope you're not talking about two totally separate innings where the openers go back out.
    Nah, think the idea is you've 20 wickets accross 50 overs. Shocking idea.

  14. #14
    State Captain LA ICE-E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    1,973
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    I actually don't think this idea is horrible. You'd have to split it into two innings of 25 - not 20 - for it to be of any real use though as 40 overs matches have always been fairly dire as far as I'm concerned. I'm also assuming that the innings would continue after the split; I certainly hope you're not talking about two totally separate innings where the openers go back out.

    There are certainly some advantages. it'd nullify the effect of a toss and potentially keep games "live" for a bit longer as well as ending complete blowouts a little quicker.

    The main issue I have with it is the disadvantage the batsmen not out "across innings" would face. I suppose we see the same thing across session breaks in Tests though, and it's just viewed as part of the game, so I'm not sure.
    Yeah i wouldn't want it to be 40 overs, and I'm pretty sure it's not 2 separate innings then it would just be a 20/20 double header.

    I don't see that as a disadvantage because it already happens when a teams bowled out early then the 2nd innings is started and then broken up while they go to lunch and then they resume again.

  15. #15
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,620
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Nah, think the idea is you've 20 wickets accross 50 overs. Shocking idea.
    If that's the case then I'm strongly against it. It'd basically be one rather drawn out Twenty20 game. It'd honestly rather watch a Twenty20 double header with my time than a game like that.

    I think an innings resumption system has merit, but I'd still rather even it wasn't implemented.

Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. SA v NZ ODIs
    By Rich2001 in forum Fantasy Cricket
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 20-11-2007, 05:29 AM
  2. Is 20/20 better than ODIs ? A Poll
    By JASON in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 125
    Last Post: 12-07-2006, 05:36 AM
  3. The first and last Super Sub ODIs
    By James in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 20-04-2006, 05:35 PM
  4. Best ODI innings ever?
    By thierry henry in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: 20-03-2006, 05:00 AM
  5. ODIs or 20/20 ?
    By Run like Inzy in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 26-08-2005, 06:27 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •